It is to LOL
OK, so you know how "Watchmen" is coming out on Friday? And how it's based on what is usually agreed to be the best comic book of all time? And how every comic book nerd on the planet has his Ambush Bug boxer shorts in a twist, hoping that it'll be good but secretly worried that it's going to suck like every other adaptation of an Alan Moore book has? Well, if you don't, then you've certainly seen the previews on TV. They're everywhere, and have probably left you with a lot of questions, like "Who are all those blue guys?" and "Why does that one dude look so much like Batman?" and "Hey, what's up with that one dude's face?"
Well, don't worry, because it's normal to have those questions. And it clearly doesn't mean you can't be a movie reviewer for a classy publication like "The New Yorker" because this idiot here wrote a review of the movie that seems to intentionally miss all of the points Alan Moore made in the book that were carried over to the movie.
He comes into this interview with a blatantly apparent bias against comic books, if not a complete misunderstanding of what a comic book is. He begins by mentioning that two of Moore's works have already been made into movies ("The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and "V for Vendetta," though he neglects "Constantine"), which indicates that he did at least a cursory amount of research. He also points out that Moore has removed his name from all of these projects, including "Watchmen," but he does not say why, which relates directly to the Wachowski Brothers and their gutting, stuffing, and mounting of the premise in "V for Vendetta:" the brothers W claimed that Moore had endorsed their version when he had not. They took pride in this, since he had not done so with "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" with good reason. This false claim of endorsement led Moore to leave DC Comics, where he had worked since the early 1980s, entirely. And since Moore wrote "Watchmen" specifically to exhibit the unique storytelling abilities of the comic book format, it's clear that he would want nothing to do with a movie made out of it, not to mention his current hatred of DC/Warner Brothers.
That misunderstanding on the author's part can be forgiven, however, but he proceeds to take any credit and destroy it utterly by missing the foreshadowing, characterization, and themes that a middle-schooler would be expected to pick up on when writing a book report. He says "This entails a whisk through history from the nineteen-forties to the eighties, with shots of masked figures shaking hands with John F. Kennedy, posing with Andy Warhol, and so forth; these are staged like Annie Leibovitz setups, and, indeed, just to ram home the in-joke, we later see a Leibovitz look-alike behind a camera," failing to note that these scenes set the stage for an America where costumed vigilantes are an everyday part of life.
In his character descriptions, he catches that Rorschach is a psychopath, but fails to notice that his name comes from the ink-blot test and his mask, which is an empty void, where any meaning must be imposed by the observer; a nihilistic comment on the godless universe Rorschach believes in. He is the embodiment of Nietzsche's statement that "if you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss stares back," a point rammed home by the psychiatrist's analysis of Rorschach's psyche.
He realizes that Nite-Owl is very similar to Batman, which is a blatantly obvious point, even in the comics. He was written as such, with liberal doses of Blue Beetle II (Ted Kord).
His commentary on the Comedian, Silk Spectre, and Ozymandias is largely indisputable, as it contains no real information. Though he does mention that Ozymandias doesn't look capable of anything more violent than "twist[ing] the leg off his Teddy bear," another piece of strikingly-short-sighted insight.
His description of Dr. Manhattan, however, makes it apparent that he paid little attention to the film. Manhattan is described as, among other things, radioactive, which is blatantly false and the falsehood of which is a key point in a subplot. He continues:"I felt sorry for Crudup, a thoughtful actor forced to spout gibberish about the meaning of time and, much worse, to have that lovely shy smile of his wiped by special effects. Dr. Manhattan is central to Moore’s chronological conceit, which is that President Nixon (Robert Wisden), having used our blue friend to annihilate the Vietcong, wins the Vietnam War and, by 1985-the era in which the bulk of the tale takes place-is somehow serving a third term."
This so-called "conceit" about time only further proves that the author has no idea what he's talking about. The Nixon era's fear, absolutism, and tyrant-like rule is an essential part of the world Moore creates, where the existence of a super-powered being has tipped the balance of the Cold War such that there can be no backing down from nuclear Armageddon like there was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. This issue is at the heart of the story, and Anthony Lane wouldn't have understood that if it came out of the screen and slapped him in the face.
I shouldn't even bother to dissect his failures further down the review, but since he thinks all comic book fans are fat, lonely, immature...OK, this isn't going anywhere good. Point is, he holds a negative stereotype of comic books that is so overblown that it destroys his ability to look at this movie as anything more than a mindless action flick about people in spandex. It's so much more that if you go expecting an X-Men flick or the next Fantastic Four, you won't be able to enjoy the movie for the deafening sound of things whizzing over your head.
Moore's book is a deconstruction and analysis of the superhero comic book, following the existence of an unstoppable super-being to its logical conclusions in the Cold War era. Dr. Manhattan is so godlike that he no longer feels any connection to the humans he ostensibly protects; Nite-Owl is an impotent rich boy who likes to play dress-up (in more ways than one). Silk Spectre is a child forcibly molded into the image of what her mother wanted to be, so she can get her vicarious jollies long into retirement. The Comedian is a sadist, a twisted lunatic no better than the criminals he imprisons and legitimized only by his place on the Federal government payroll. Rorschach, as I said, has fought monsters so long that he has become one, so far around the bend that he cannot see the forest for the trees. There's so much more to this book than people in weird outfits beating other people up. It's an important work of fiction whose ramifications are still being felt in the comic world today.
I'll leave you with the final failure of the review: "and it leaves you wondering: where did the comedy go?"
Eddie Blake could tell you. He's the only one who gets the joke.
Edit:
I forgot to mention the one thing that Lane got right in the whole article:
“This awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children.” That line from the book may be meant as a punky retread of James Ellroy, but it sounds to me like a writer trying much, much too hard; either way, it makes it directly into the movie, as one of Rorschach’s voice-overs.
Yes! That's exactly the point. Rorschach is trying way too hard. he's completely mad. He thinks that he's the only decent person left, that the world is full of "politicians and...whores" and now that his dad is gone and Harry Truman is dead, there's no one left but him to fight against injustice. He's writing this journal partially to himself and partially to the right-wing newspaper "The New Frontiersman," which he feels shares his views. This, and all of the other journal entries, are meant to be a window into his madness, not to excuse it. But you got one thing right: he was trying too hard. And you weren't trying hard enough.
Well, don't worry, because it's normal to have those questions. And it clearly doesn't mean you can't be a movie reviewer for a classy publication like "The New Yorker" because this idiot here wrote a review of the movie that seems to intentionally miss all of the points Alan Moore made in the book that were carried over to the movie.
He comes into this interview with a blatantly apparent bias against comic books, if not a complete misunderstanding of what a comic book is. He begins by mentioning that two of Moore's works have already been made into movies ("The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and "V for Vendetta," though he neglects "Constantine"), which indicates that he did at least a cursory amount of research. He also points out that Moore has removed his name from all of these projects, including "Watchmen," but he does not say why, which relates directly to the Wachowski Brothers and their gutting, stuffing, and mounting of the premise in "V for Vendetta:" the brothers W claimed that Moore had endorsed their version when he had not. They took pride in this, since he had not done so with "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" with good reason. This false claim of endorsement led Moore to leave DC Comics, where he had worked since the early 1980s, entirely. And since Moore wrote "Watchmen" specifically to exhibit the unique storytelling abilities of the comic book format, it's clear that he would want nothing to do with a movie made out of it, not to mention his current hatred of DC/Warner Brothers.
That misunderstanding on the author's part can be forgiven, however, but he proceeds to take any credit and destroy it utterly by missing the foreshadowing, characterization, and themes that a middle-schooler would be expected to pick up on when writing a book report. He says "This entails a whisk through history from the nineteen-forties to the eighties, with shots of masked figures shaking hands with John F. Kennedy, posing with Andy Warhol, and so forth; these are staged like Annie Leibovitz setups, and, indeed, just to ram home the in-joke, we later see a Leibovitz look-alike behind a camera," failing to note that these scenes set the stage for an America where costumed vigilantes are an everyday part of life.
In his character descriptions, he catches that Rorschach is a psychopath, but fails to notice that his name comes from the ink-blot test and his mask, which is an empty void, where any meaning must be imposed by the observer; a nihilistic comment on the godless universe Rorschach believes in. He is the embodiment of Nietzsche's statement that "if you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss stares back," a point rammed home by the psychiatrist's analysis of Rorschach's psyche.
He realizes that Nite-Owl is very similar to Batman, which is a blatantly obvious point, even in the comics. He was written as such, with liberal doses of Blue Beetle II (Ted Kord).
His commentary on the Comedian, Silk Spectre, and Ozymandias is largely indisputable, as it contains no real information. Though he does mention that Ozymandias doesn't look capable of anything more violent than "twist[ing] the leg off his Teddy bear," another piece of strikingly-short-sighted insight.
His description of Dr. Manhattan, however, makes it apparent that he paid little attention to the film. Manhattan is described as, among other things, radioactive, which is blatantly false and the falsehood of which is a key point in a subplot. He continues:"I felt sorry for Crudup, a thoughtful actor forced to spout gibberish about the meaning of time and, much worse, to have that lovely shy smile of his wiped by special effects. Dr. Manhattan is central to Moore’s chronological conceit, which is that President Nixon (Robert Wisden), having used our blue friend to annihilate the Vietcong, wins the Vietnam War and, by 1985-the era in which the bulk of the tale takes place-is somehow serving a third term."
This so-called "conceit" about time only further proves that the author has no idea what he's talking about. The Nixon era's fear, absolutism, and tyrant-like rule is an essential part of the world Moore creates, where the existence of a super-powered being has tipped the balance of the Cold War such that there can be no backing down from nuclear Armageddon like there was during the Cuban Missile Crisis. This issue is at the heart of the story, and Anthony Lane wouldn't have understood that if it came out of the screen and slapped him in the face.
I shouldn't even bother to dissect his failures further down the review, but since he thinks all comic book fans are fat, lonely, immature...OK, this isn't going anywhere good. Point is, he holds a negative stereotype of comic books that is so overblown that it destroys his ability to look at this movie as anything more than a mindless action flick about people in spandex. It's so much more that if you go expecting an X-Men flick or the next Fantastic Four, you won't be able to enjoy the movie for the deafening sound of things whizzing over your head.
Moore's book is a deconstruction and analysis of the superhero comic book, following the existence of an unstoppable super-being to its logical conclusions in the Cold War era. Dr. Manhattan is so godlike that he no longer feels any connection to the humans he ostensibly protects; Nite-Owl is an impotent rich boy who likes to play dress-up (in more ways than one). Silk Spectre is a child forcibly molded into the image of what her mother wanted to be, so she can get her vicarious jollies long into retirement. The Comedian is a sadist, a twisted lunatic no better than the criminals he imprisons and legitimized only by his place on the Federal government payroll. Rorschach, as I said, has fought monsters so long that he has become one, so far around the bend that he cannot see the forest for the trees. There's so much more to this book than people in weird outfits beating other people up. It's an important work of fiction whose ramifications are still being felt in the comic world today.
I'll leave you with the final failure of the review: "and it leaves you wondering: where did the comedy go?"
Eddie Blake could tell you. He's the only one who gets the joke.
Edit:
I forgot to mention the one thing that Lane got right in the whole article:
“This awful city, it screams like an abattoir full of retarded children.” That line from the book may be meant as a punky retread of James Ellroy, but it sounds to me like a writer trying much, much too hard; either way, it makes it directly into the movie, as one of Rorschach’s voice-overs.
Yes! That's exactly the point. Rorschach is trying way too hard. he's completely mad. He thinks that he's the only decent person left, that the world is full of "politicians and...whores" and now that his dad is gone and Harry Truman is dead, there's no one left but him to fight against injustice. He's writing this journal partially to himself and partially to the right-wing newspaper "The New Frontiersman," which he feels shares his views. This, and all of the other journal entries, are meant to be a window into his madness, not to excuse it. But you got one thing right: he was trying too hard. And you weren't trying hard enough.